How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Student Theses Baruch College Spring 5-21-2021 Hiring Candidates with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Effects of Diagnostic Disclosure and Presence of ASD Behaviors on Employability Ratings Geetanjali Sugrim CUNY Bernard M Baruch College How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/bb_etds/109 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: AcademicWorks@cuny.edu
EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 1
Hiring Candidates with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Effects of Diagnostic Disclosure
and Presence of ASD Behaviors on Employability Ratings
Geetanjali Sugrim
Submitted to the Committee on Undergraduate Honors at Baruch College of the City University
of New York on May 3rd, 2021 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Business Administration in I/O Psychology with Honors.
Professor Angela M. Pinto
Faculty Sponsor
Professor Charles Scherbaum Professor Nicholas Sibrava
Departmental Honors Committee Departmental Honors CommitteeEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………… 3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………... 4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Overview of ASD………………………………………………………………………... 8
ASD Employment & Disability Legislation……………………………………………... 9
Public Knowledge of ASD………………………………………………………………. 11
Media Misconceptions of ASD…………………………………………………………. 14
Camouflaging……………………………………………………………………………. 18
Disclosure………………………………………………………………………………... 19
Method……………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Participants…………………………………………………………………………….… 24
Materials…………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Research Design…………………………………………………………………………. 28
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Data Analysis Plan………………………………………………………………………. 29
Results……………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………... 34
References………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………… 52
Appendix A: Vignettes…………………………………………………………………... 52
Appendix B: Employability Scale and Overall Candidate Evaluation…………………... 55
Appendix C: Autism Spectrum Knowledge Scale-General (ASKSG)…………………... 56
Appendix D: ASD Stereotype Scale (ASD-SS) ………………………………………… 58EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 3
Acknowledgements
Conducting this thesis project was an incredibly fulfilling and dynamic learning
experience. Research and literature on ASD and disability employment are ever-growing, and I
am proud to contribute with this project. The past year was erratic with the COVID-19 pandemic
and other surprises along the way. Through it all, key individuals assisted me with their
flexibility, encouragement, and willingness to help. I would first like to extend a sincere thank
you to my thesis advisor and faculty sponsor, Dr. Angela Pinto. As a former student in her
Research Methods in Psychology course, I first learned how to plan and execute research. As the
primary mentor for this project, her guidance over the past year has been immeasurable. Beyond
words of encouragement, Dr. Pinto ensured that I was supported every step of the way while
providing the framework for my understanding of thesis writing and data reporting. Her
knowledge, expertise, and kind words truly allowed this work to go beyond my expectations.
I would also like to thank my thesis readers, Dr. Charles Scherbaum and Dr. Nicholas
Sibrava. Dr. Scherbaum, who is also my mentor in his Personnel Selection & Assessment Lab,
has consistently provided me with guidance on the disability employment process and shared
resources as the topic evolves with COVID-19. Dr. Sibrava expanded my limited baseline
knowledge of autism which allowed me to incorporate key considerations for the project and
ensure that my language was inclusive.
Finally, I’d like to thank my family and friends. The tremendous social and emotional
support received along the way provided points of reassurance in myself while pushing my
boundaries of comfort. To everyone who has helped me along the way, thank you again. The
implications of this research does not end here and will persevere as I apply what I’ve learned in
my transition to the workforce, graduate school, and beyond.EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 4
Abstract
Despite the increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses and
organizational emphasis on workplace diversity, limited information is known about how
disclosure of an ASD diagnosis and presence of ASD behaviors impact perceived employability
in an interview setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these factors using an
experimental design. Participants were 258 students (Mage = 21.9 years, SD = 5.1; 56% female;
75% non-White) at an urban public college who completed questionnaires on ASD knowledge
and stereotypes and evaluated employability of vignette characters interviewing for a job
interview. Vignettes varied across two dimensions: ASD disclosure (disclosure or no disclosure)
and ASD behavior (present or absent) and participants were randomly assigned using a 2x2
between-subjects design. Results showed that employability scores were significantly lower
when ASD behaviors were present (vs. absent) and when ASD was not disclosed (vs. disclosed).
The interaction was not significant. Knowledge of ASD in this sample of college students was
comparable to that found in the general population. Endorsement of ASD stereotypes was
variable, with a substantial proportion of the sample reporting uncertainty with regards to their
endorsement of stereotypes. These findings contribute to the literature on attitudes toward
employing individuals with ASD and may be useful for informing organizational policies on
education and training in disability employment.
Keywords: autism spectrum disorder (ASD), disclosure, ASD behaviors, workplace diversity,
employment, stereotypes, ASD knowledgeEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 5
Hiring Candidates with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Effects of Diagnostic Disclosure
and Presence of ASD Behaviors on Employability Ratings
As organizations adapt to create cultures of diversity and inclusion (D&I), employers
have largely neglected one group: workers with disabilities (Procknow & Rocco 2016). In fact,
nearly 90% of companies endorse prioritizing diversity, but less than 10% of companies consider
disabilities in these D&I initiatives (Casey, 2020). Workers with disabilities participate less in
the workforce than non-disabled populations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Those with
concealable stigmatized cognitive or mental disabilities face social stigma and the difficult
choice of whether to disclose their diagnosis (Chaudoir & Quinn, 2010). On one hand, disclosing
a disability may lead to bias from interviewers and other work personnel; on the other hand,
disclosure may be necessary for appropriate workplace accommodations to be made (Schur et
al., 2014).
Among the range of disabilities that are frequently overlooked in workplace D&I
initiatives is autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Autism spectrum disorder is a
neurodevelopmental disorder that is characterized by two central impairments: persistent deficits
in social communication and repetitive behaviors (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Diagnosis of ASD is increasingly common, with the CDC estimating that 1 child in every 54
births has autism (Maenner et al., 2016).
While autism is considered multifactorial in etiology and heterogeneous in symptom
presentation (Masi et al., 2017), lay persons hold misguided and overgeneralized views about its
causes and characteristics. Contrary to scientific consensus, beliefs associating autism’s causes to
parenting and vaccines persist in the general population (Castillo et al., 2020; McClain et al.,EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 6
2019). Likewise, lay persons often endorse negative autism myths around symptomology and
behaviors, including beliefs that people with autism are dangerous or that autism is the result of
cold parenting (Salahi & Chitale, 2008).
Media representations play a significant role in shaping public view of ASD. For
example, film and television media often portray characters with autism as savants (Draaisma,
2009) whereas other types of media representations, such as nonprofits, sensationalize a narrative
that portrays ASD either as a childhood disorder or one in which individuals are trapped in a
childlike, often non-verbal, and frustrated state (Stevenson et al., 2011). Such media narratives
present a homogeneous view of autism and may lead to stigmatization and social obstacles for
persons with ASD.
While greater knowledge about autism is correlated with better perceptions of individuals
with ASD in employment decisions, employment outcomes for individuals with ASD remain
bleak (McMahon et al., 2020). The unemployment rate for workers with ASD is estimated to be
near 50%, and this estimate includes workers with milder symptoms (Ohl et al., 2017).
Candidates with ASD face several challenges navigating the job process, beginning with the
interview. These difficulties include struggling to identify nonverbal cues such as facial
expressions and tone of voice, failing to recognize social norms, and difficulties formulating
quick responses to interview questions (Breward, 2019; Hendricks, 2009). When navigating a
neurotypical world, candidates with ASD frequently engage in camouflaging, a term used to
denote masking one’s behaviors as a tool to adapt across social contexts (Hull et al., 2017). This
mechanism adds another layer of mental health burden to those with ASD – often manifesting as
stress, depression, and anxiety (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019). Candidates with ASD navigate
the risk of disclosing their diagnosis to hiring managers, employers, and coworkers. ResearchEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 7
shows that disclosing an invisible identity is associated with negative job outcomes such as
reduced work hours, job loss, and isolation at work (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, 2005; Dalgin &
Bellini, 2008).
Finally, disabilities are frequently omitted from initiatives to increase workplace diversity
and inclusion (Procknow & Rocco, 2016). Despite this, research identifies numerous benefits of
hiring people with disabilities such as improved profits, reducing turnover, and reaching diverse
customers (Lindsay et al., 2018). Some companies have begun adapting programs meant to
attract candidates with ASD and employing this neurodivergent group has shown beneficial
business outcomes (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Placing workers with ASD in suitable jobs
empowers them, provides independence through financial support, and creates meaningful
outcomes for everyone involved. As we move to valuing employee identities in their full and
complete dimensions, it is essential that mental, cognitive, and developmental disabilities
become part of that workplace discussion.
Currently, research on increasing neurodiversity in the workplace is in its early stages.
Specifically, little is known about how potential employers evaluate candidates with ASD. The
present study extends ASD employment literature by using a 2x2 experimental design to test the
effect of ASD disclosure and presence of ASD stereotyped behaviors on judgements of
employability. A secondary contribution of this study is to examine knowledge of ASD and
endorsement of ASD stereotypes. The project is meant to address employees, managers, or
supervisors with hiring authority, and organizations who are committed to developing policies to
guide fair hiring practices. Results from the project may also be of value to the general
population by increasing awareness of inaccurate stereotyping of those with ASD and other
invisible disabilities.EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 8
Overview of ASD
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American
Psychiatric Association, 2013) classifies ASD with the group of neurodevelopmental disorders,
meaning that symptoms are prevalent in developmental life stages. The DSM-5’s umbrella term
of ASD includes several pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) including Asperger’s
disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) (Hyman,
2013). According to the DSM-5, there are two main diagnostic criteria for ASD. First, ASD is
marked by ongoing deficits in social communication and social interaction. This criterion
encompasses reduced social-emotional reciprocity, poor nonverbal and verbal communication,
and deficits in building and understanding relationships. The second criterion encompasses
repetitive and restricted behaviors and interests. This criterion involves a fixation on certain
interests that can be deemed abnormal, an insistence on “sameness” or routines, and stereotyped
motor movements. Three levels of severity of ASD are specified for social communication and
restricted, repetitive behaviors, including “requiring support,” “requiring substantial support,”
and “requiring very substantial support.” These levels offer greater clarity of one’s
symptomology, contrasting commonly used terms such as high- and low-functioning, which are
regarded as harmful labels to individuals with autism (Alvares et al., 2020). Comorbid conditions
linked to autism include intellectual impairments and structural language disorder conditions
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
The prevalence of ASD diagnoses has increased considerably in the past twenty years,
with a 2016 estimate that 1 in 54 children aged 8 years old have autism (CDC, 2020). This is a
notable increase compared to a prior estimate in 2000 of 1 in 150 children having autism
(Maenner et al., 2016). Maenner and colleagues (2016) further concluded that ASD prevalenceEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 9
among boys is higher than among girls. The prevalence of ASD among adults in the United
States is estimated to be 2.21%, corresponding to nearly 5.5 million people, with approximately
four times as many males affected as females (Dietz et al., 2020).
ASD Employment & Disability Legislation
Low unemployment rates for people with disabilities is a significant issue. The U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that in 2016, 20% of people with a disability participated in
the labor force compared to 68.5% of individuals without a disability. Moreover, the
unemployment rate for people with a disability was more than twice that of those without a
disability (10.5% vs. 4.6%) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Among individuals with
ASD, it is estimated that approximately half of adults who have the desire and ability to work are
unemployed (Ohl et al., 2017). Underemployment is also common; most working adults with
ASD take part-time roles averaging less than 30 hours a week and are frequently underpaid or
overqualified for the nature of their work (Baldwin et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2018). Individuals
with ASD often find it harder to obtain suitable job roles for their educational degree and other
training qualifications (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004).
Employment protections for individuals with disabilities is an issue of legislative
concern. Historically, federal legislation in place to protect employees with disabilities has
yielded inconsistent benefit for employees with ASD. For example, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 prohibited discrimination against qualified candidates with physical and mental disabilities
by federal agencies, programs receiving federal financial assistance, and federal contractors (29
U.S.C. § 794(a), 2012). In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expanded the anti-
discrimination statute to all areas of public life, encompassing public entities (e.g., schools,
transportation) and private companies, and further specified the criteria to qualify for suchEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 10
protections (e.g., if an individual has a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting a
major life activity). While the ADA intended to protect all persons with disabilities meeting
ADA criteria, the definition of a “substantially limiting” impairment was open to interpretation
in courts (Hensel, 2017). As a result, conditions including diabetes, cancer, epilepsy, and
developmental disabilities could be deemed insufficient in severity to qualify for protections.
This was improved with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 which articulated an expanded list
of major life activities including impacts to concentrating, communicating, and thinking (Hensel,
2017). Although such legislations included protections for employees with ASD, these
regulations were passed during times of public uncertainty around the causes of autism and
changing DSM definitions (SARRC, 2018; Zeldovich, 2018), which likely influenced the public
image of ASD and other disorders.
Ongoing federal initiatives starting in the 1990s and early 2000s purported to support
employment of people with a range of disabilities. For example, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal government agency responsible for enforcing
federal laws against discrimination toward job applicants or employees, published a guidance
document (Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under
the ADA) to address the rights and responsibilities of employers and individuals with disabilities
(U.S. EEOC, 2002). The agency stipulates that it is the employer’s responsibility to distribute
EEOC ADA-related educational trainings to employees (U.S. EEOC, 1991).
Unfortunately, such federal oversight has had limited benefits for employees with ASD.
Van Wieren and colleagues (2008) examined EEOC allegations from 1992 to 2003 for ASD and
general disabilities (e.g., asthma, back impairment, cancer, HIV). Authors noted that the small
number of ASD allegations, just 0.03% of the total 328,738, may be attributed to persons withEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 11
ASD not understanding their civil rights or how to exercise them. It was determined that most
ASD allegations were the result of job conditions or circumstances and job maintenance or
preservation (Van Wieren, 2008). Clearly, underemployment and workplace protections for
employees with ASD remain complex issues. To assist workers with ASD while ensuring
compliance with the EEOC and ADA, organizations may need to expedite initiatives meant to
assist employees with ASD understand their civil rights.
Public Knowledge of ASD
Public knowledge of autism is varied, with laypersons holding differing perceptions
about ASD etiology and myths about presentation of ASD behaviors. On etiology, for example,
the psychogenic model is comprised of theories attributing the cause of ASD to parental skills,
including a main view of parents who are cold or rejecting to their children (Furnham & Buck,
2003). Though the psychogenic model is largely rejected by experts due to its overly simplistic
and inaccurate blame placed on parenting, research on lay person’s perceptions of ASD supports
the notion that deficits in family environments continue to be regarded as a significant cause of
ASD. In a recent study of 610 adults recruited across the U.S., Castillo and colleagues (2020)
reported that nearly 20% of participants indicated that parental behavior or parenting
‘sometimes’ cause autism. In the same study, 25% of participants endorsed the notion that family
problems in the home ‘sometimes’ caused autism. In a study by McClain and colleagues (2019)
which surveyed 318 US adults from the general population, approximately 15% reported
believing that ASD was caused by a lack of motherly warmth.
Another misconception about ASD etiology held by the general public is that vaccines
cause autism. This belief was first spurred following a 1998 study published in The Lancet
showing an association between administration of the measles mumps and rubella (MMR)EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 12
vaccine and onset of ASD symptoms in a small number of children (Furnham & Buck, 2003;
Wakefield et al., 1998). That paper has since been retracted by the journal due to flaws and
inaccuracies and numerous large-scale studies have failed to show an association between ASD
and the MMR vaccine. Despite evidence disproving a link between ASD and the MMR vaccine,
many continue to believe it. In fact, 10% of 999 adult respondents from samples of both
childcare providers and the public considered vaccines to be one of two main causes of autism
(Mitchell & Locke, 2015). In a lay person focus group, the linkage between the MMR vaccine
and autism was also reported, with one participant questioning if ASD was a possible side effect
of vaccines (Huws & Jones, 2010). Finally, results of two recent studies reported that 20-30% of
general population participants supported beliefs that endorsed the idea of vaccines causing
autism (Castillo et al., 2020; McClain et al., 2019). These studies demonstrate the persistence of
this inaccurate belief in a subset of the general population.
However, other research on public perceptions of ASD etiology indicates that the
psychogenic model and false linkage to vaccines are not the overarching views held by
laypersons. While the exact cause of autism is unknown, its etiology is understood to be
multifactorial with genetics playing a significant role. The biomedical model places an emphasis
on biological causes including genetic components or brain abnormalities (CDC, 2020; Furnham
& Buck, 2003). Research by Castillo and colleagues (2020) showed that more than half of
participants surveyed agreed that autism ‘often’ occurs due to medical neurological factors while
38% deemed it to occur ‘often’ due to genetics. Mitchell and Locke (2015) reported greater
endorsement of this view in their study of 823 lay respondents and 176 childcare providers, with
65% to 75% of the sample agreeing that neurological or genetic factors caused autism. Thus,EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 13
while the public understanding of ASD etiology is wide ranging, research suggests that a
majority of people correctly perceive biological factors to be a significant contributor.
Research shows that lay persons endorse overgeneralized myths about autism behaviors.
Common myths of autism include the notion that individuals with ASD cannot build
relationships or that individuals with ASD are dangerous (Salahi & Chitale, 2008). To better
understand these beliefs, John and colleagues (2018) conducted a focus group study of 37
participants ranging in age (19 to 83 years old) and experience with autism (half of the group had
some experience with autism in an employment, family, or social contact setting). Participants
were asked to describe their beliefs about ASD. Researchers identified seven myths associated
with ASD, including a view that people with autism are introverts, dislike being touched, are
disinterested in social relationships, and are unable to notice rejection. Research by Jensen and
colleagues’ (2016) showed that in a sample of 440 adults recruited from the general population,
more than half (63.2%) agreed that people with autism have an impaired ability to understand
their own feelings and the feelings of others while 70.4% agreed that people with ASD withdraw
from social life and 71.6% endorsed the notion that people with autism have difficulties
establishing relationships with other people. Although these beliefs are consistent with DSM-5
criteria, lay persons may be prone to overgeneralize ASD characteristics and view autism in
homogenous ways.
Though more limited, research has examined college students’ perceptions of peers with
autism. This literature suggests that college students are informed about ASD. For example, a
study by Payne and Wood (2016) showed that participants correctly identified key features of
ASD including repetitive movements, deficits in social skills, and gaze aversion. Having some
relationship with a person with ASD also seems to influence perceptions of ASD. Several studiesEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 14
show that participants who knew someone with ASD reported higher openness to interacting
with a peer with ASD or greater knowledge of ASD (Nevill & White, 2011; Tipton & Blancher,
2013; White et al., 2019).
In sum, current research on the public’s perception of ASD continues to reflect some
degree of misconception regarding its etiology and characteristics. While this may be explained
by a variety of factors, one source of influence is the media’s representation of ASD.
Media Misconceptions of ASD
The public view of autism is largely shaped by the media through television and film
(Mitchell & Locke, 2015) and autism awareness efforts by nonprofits (Stevenson et al., 2011). In
an examination of 26 movies and TV series, Nordahl-Hansen and colleagues (2018) concluded
that the media portrayals of characters with ASD may misguide the public’s view of the disorder.
For example, 46% of the characters possessed savant-like skills, which is higher than the real-
world estimate (10-30%) of savantism in ASD. Further, the researchers argued that although
many characters met most DSM-5 criteria, they form an archetypal portrayal of ASD which fails
to describe a large portion of people with ASD. Nonprofit organizations for autism awareness
influence the public perception of ASD in their tendency to use exclusively child-centered
language and visuals in their autism advocacy efforts (Stevenson et al., 2011). Popular media has
also contributed to this child-centered conception of autism (Murray, 2016). Overall, these
depictions facilitate two opposing misconceptions of ASD: either that someone with autism is an
adult, male savant or that someone with autism is childlike, non-verbal, and having severe autism
(Kennedy Krieger Institute, 2020).EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 15
A minority of ASD diagnoses are accompanied by savant syndrome (e.g., exceptional
abilities in memory, mathematics, art, or music), which is three times more likely to be reported
in males than females (Happé, 2018; Howlin et al., 2009). However, most media portrayals
depict characters with ASD as savants or extremely genius, possessing a rare talent, or gifted in
some way (Draaisma, 2009). For example, in the movie Rain Man and the television show, The
Good Doctor, the protagonists have both autism and savant skills, which are evident in their
behaviors and relationships with others (Treffert, 2017). Associations between savant syndrome
and autism are usually linked to positive perceptions from lay persons. In a study assessing
college students’ perceptions of ASD after watching 30 minutes of The Good Doctor,
participants chose more positive traits (e.g., empathetic, confident) and fewer negative ones (e.g.,
weird, unintelligent) when associating adjectives to people with autism (Stern & Barnes, 2019).
Yet, autism is heterogenous and this representation falls short in describing the majority of ASD
cases. The persisting media portrayal of an adult male savant with ASD removes focus on
populations not fitting this depiction.
With much of the public receiving information about autism through the media, these
inaccuracies may lead viewers to think that having ASD and being a savant are synonymous. In
qualitative studies with lay persons, savant skills are persistently associated with autism. For
instance, Huws & Jones (2010) conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve adult
participants aged 26 to 39 years to explore lay person understanding of autism and found a
common perception was that individuals with autism had a “gift” or an exceptional ability. John
and colleagues (2018) conducted a similar study with 37 adult participants (mean age = 36.8
years) from a variety of groups including undergraduate and postgraduate students, older adults,
and church members. Among the seven myths of autism that emerged were that people withEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 16
autism have a special talent or savant skill. In a study of 440 lay participants, nearly 77% of the
sample indicated agreement with the item, “Exceptional great knowledge about certain topics”
when describing beliefs about autism (Jensen et al., 2016, p. 501). Finally, a study of 298
college-aged participants found that within the top ten most frequently mentioned traits of
autism, respondents mentioned special abilities (18.3%) and high intelligence (16.5%) (Wood &
Freeth, 2016).
Beyond misperceptions about the prevalence of savant skill among individuals with ASD,
the association between gender and savantism influences how adult women with ASD are
perceived. In a qualitative study by Bargiela and colleagues (2016) examining experiences of 14
women who received late clinical diagnoses of ASD, participants noted feelings of being
ignored, misunderstood, or dismissed when explaining their ASD to others. In fact, one
participant remarked feeling that because she did not fit the savant stereotype associated with
ASD (e.g., not being good at math), others did not believe she had autism.
The second major misconception of autism is that individuals with ASD are children or
child-like adults with severe autism who are often non-verbal, unable to express themselves, and
aggressive. This misconception is a sharp contrast to the savant stereotype but also
sensationalizes the reality of ASD. This image is propagated across nonprofits, television, and
film. Stevenson and colleagues (2011) found that across webpages of the Autism Society of
America, the U.S.’s leading autism-related support organization, 95% of 152 photographs were
children. The authors further concluded that among the top twelve revenue generating charities
for ASD, 75% used terms such as “child” and “children” exclusively when describing or
defining autism on their websites. In fact, Autism Speaks, one of the most recognized ASD
organizations, used only child-referenced discourse to describe autism at the time of the 2011EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 17
study. Finally, nonprofits and internet campaigns that use child-centered rhetoric were also found
to endorse the notion that autism can be cured (Stevenson et al., 2011). This is significant in
influencing public advocacy for autism and addressing the needs of individuals with autism.
Kapp and colleagues (2013) examined conceptions of autism and neurodiversity in a study of
657 adults with and without ASD. Parents and those without ASD were more likely to endorse
seeking a cure, finding causes of autism, and teaching children how to appear typical compared
to adults diagnosed with ASD. This observation does not dismiss the support that nonprofit and
internet campaigns provide, but rather identifies the potential for bias in influencing public
perception of what individuals with autism look like and how they can best be supported as they
transition to adulthood.
The media, through television and film, has also contributed to a child-focused
conception of individuals with autism. The notion of the trapped or eternal child, someone who
is forever confined to thinking or behaving in a child-like and limited state, is a common media
archetype for autism depictions (Sarrett, 2011). Characters fitting this archetype were especially
common throughout the 1960s to 1990s, with films focusing on difficult parental decisions to
place their child into an institution or storylines where the misunderstood child runs away from
their family (Murray, 2016). These narratives depict the ultimate “sacrifice” of lifelong care by
parents and caretakers for an aggressive non-verbal individual with autism and propagate the
belief that individuals with ASD cannot live independently (Allen, 2017). Indeed, research
shows that this stereotype persists. In a qualitative study examining perceptions of autism, Huws
and Jones (2010) found that participants believed that people with ASD might not fit into
“normal society” such as having the ability to live independently, and instead would need to live
with their families or placed in institutions or homes.EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 18
Camouflaging
Interacting in social settings is complex for individuals with ASD. To appear
neurotypical, and thus avoid negative judgement from others, individuals with ASD may engage
in ‘camouflaging,’ ‘masking,’ or ‘compensation’- the intentional withholding of behaviors
associated with autism (Hull et al., 2017). Camouflaging behaviors range from maintaining eye
contact, creating learned scripts for social interactions, or imitating facial expressions (Lai et al.,
2017). Cage and Troxell-Whitman (2019) identified formal and interpersonal contexts for
camouflaging in a sample of 262 adults identifying as having an autism spectrum condition
(51.5%), Asperger’s syndrome (60.3%), or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise
specified (1.5%). Formal contexts include communicating with one’s university personnel, with
an interviewer or company in a hiring process, with customer service professionals, and with
doctors. Interpersonal contexts included with friends, romantic partners, and other members of
the ASD community.
While there are perceived benefits of camouflaging such as relationship building or
securing a job, there is increasing concern that it may have a negative effect on mental health
(Mandy, 2019). Hull and colleagues (2017) determined that camouflaging is linked to
exhaustion, with participants’ firsthand accounts of feeling emotionally and mentally drained and
having to manage discomfort following the interaction. Cage and Troxell-Whitman (2019)
concluded that individuals with ASD who camouflaged consistently across both interpersonal
and formal contexts reported feelings of higher stress and anxiety symptoms. In that study, a
subset of the original 262 participants provided key themes identified for camouflaging. Of this
subset of 91 participants, 37% reported camouflaging to avoid retaliation and bullying by others
(e.g., “To stop bullying and mocking as I’ve experienced this when not masking.”) and 31%EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 19
camouflaged for concerns about impressions (e.g., “As a parent, to show I’m competent in front
of other parents/ to teachers.”) (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019, p. 1906).
Likewise, Livingston and colleagues (2019) examined compensation behaviors by people
with ASD. They defined compensation as encompassing the act of mimicking neurotypical
behaviors while interacting with others (“shallow” compensation) and cognitive deliberations of
behaviors before an interaction occurs (“deep” compensation). This study included 136 adults
with a clinical autism diagnosis or self-identified as having autism who were asked to complete
an online survey regarding their exhibition and motivation of compensatory behaviors. Overall,
95% and 98% of the sample engaged in shallow and deep compensation, respectively.
Participants noted internal factors for compensation, like social motivation (e.g., strongly
desiring friendship) and external factors, like environmental demands (e.g., sensory stimuli).
Almost half of participants reported compensation to be ‘somewhat’ or ‘extremely’ tiring.
Indeed, the impact of compensation on quality of life is significant and includes feelings of
anxiety, self-consciousness, and poor physical health. When describing their compensating for
external factors, participants noted negative interactions with others that prompted their
engagement in compensating (e.g., “Compensation is born from necessity. We have extensive
experience of how cruel people are.”) (Livingston et al., 2019, p. 771).
Disclosure
Like camouflaging, disclosure of one’s ASD clinical diagnosis is a multi-factored
consideration depending on social context. In workplace settings, research has pointed to
multiple costs (e.g., facing stigma from coworkers) and benefits (e.g., accessing workplace
accommodations) of disclosure while views on disclosure appear to be influenced by whether the
disability is visible (Jans et al., 2012). For example, in a focus group study of 41 employedEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 20
individuals with disabilities, most participants agreed that people with visible disabilities should
disclose their condition early in the employment process if not before the start of the interview.
There was less consensus about disclosure for an invisible disability in that some participants
with hidden disabilities expressed fear that disclosure would jeopardize their chances of being
considered for the job while others felt disclosure was necessary (Jans et al., 2012). In a sample
of 254 adults with ASD with varying employment status, Ohl and colleagues (2017) found that
participants with ASD who disclosed their disability to their employer were three times more
likely to be employed compared to those who did not disclose. Yet, other research suggests that
regardless of the visibility of the disabling condition, individuals with cognitive disabilities who
disclose their disability to employers usually face worse outcomes than those with physical
disabilities. In Dalgin and Bellini’s (2008) study of 60 employers, vignettes disclosing an
invisible psychiatric disability were given lower ratings in hiring decisions and employability
than vignettes disclosing an invisible physical disability. Similarly, in their survey of 312
participants recruited from the general population, McMahon and colleagues (2020) found that
respondents held the most positive perceptions for candidates with diabetes (an invisible physical
disability) compared to candidates with ADHD and ASD.
The job interview presents several challenges for prospective employees with ASD,
including the decision of whether to disclose their disability. In an exploratory study by Sarrett
(2017) examining the employment experiences of 62 adults with ASD, most participants noted
that job interviews were stressful because of their formal and in-person nature, which often
demands social skills, flexibility, quick reasoning, and nonverbal communication. The most
difficult parts of the interview were noted to be the necessity to sustain eye contact (17%),
feelings of interview anxiety (16%), and knowing how to articulate appropriate interviewEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 21
answers such as answering questions about one’s weaknesses (12%). Likewise, Anderson and
colleagues (2021) conducted interviews with 28 parents of children with autism and 12 young
adults with ASD to examine employment experiences. Among the challenges associated with
finding a job was the interview stage. Parents noted the anxiety-inducing environment of
interviews such as their children feeling judged by interviewers and unable to advocate for
themselves. Some young adults noted they would certainly disclose their ASD diagnosis in the
interview whereas others disagreed, citing fear over others’ reactions (Anderson et al., 2021).
Thus, for individuals with ASD, the decision of whether to disclose their diagnosis in an
employment interview adds substantial pressure to an already challenging situation.
After securing employment, individuals with ASD navigate disclosing to coworkers and
supervisors. This decision presents a range of objective and subjective work outcomes. Those
with stigmatized identities who disclose their condition may face negative objective career
outcomes such as job loss, isolation at work, and limits to career advancement (Clair, Beatty, &
Maclean, 2005). Moreover, as Santuzzi and colleagues (2014) have addressed, when managers
and coworkers subscribe to stereotypes associated with disabilities, these perceptions change the
jobs that workers with disabilities are assigned to. For example, if a manager believes that people
with ASD are awkward and unsociable, a worker who has disclosed their ASD may be placed
out of a job facing customers.
Disclosing may also yield negative subjective outcomes related to coworker perceptions.
Teindl and colleagues (2018) examined the impact of developmental disability visibility on
employment outcomes across 74 interviews with adults with a developmental disability,
caregivers such as parents, and employment support persons. Following verbal disclosure of an
invisible developmental disability, participants noted that some coworkers thought that they didEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 22
not “look” disabled. In turn, participants reported feelings of being held to a higher standard than
those with visible disabilities and perceptions of being “harshly judged” when making errors at
work. Similarly, Toth and Dewa (2014) interviewed 13 adults with varying concealable
disabilities (e.g., ADHD, anxiety disorders, mood disorders) regarding their disability disclosure
process. In workplace settings, all participants noted that the fear of being perceived as
incompetent at their job was one concern when disclosing. Some participants also specified
hearing derogatory remarks from coworkers about mental disorders. Across both studies,
researchers concluded that disclosure of an invisible disability may be associated with greater
stigma from coworkers among other social barriers (e.g., derogatory remarks, being held to a
different standard). In another study, participants who stopped disclosing their ASD in future
employment explained that part of their reason for this was because their coworkers did not
believe them since they did not fit media representation of autistic behaviors (Sarrett, 2017).
Choosing to disclose one’s invisible disability is also correlated with coworker suspicion.
Receiving accommodations following disclosure of an invisible disability may be perceived as
inequitable preferential treatment if a coworker is unaware of the employee’s disability status,
which may lead to bullying and alienation (Santuzzi et al., 2014; Teindl et al., 2018).
Despite various negative outcomes associated with disclosure, disclosing is often a
necessary tool for workers with disabilities. Baldwin and colleagues (2014) determined that of
313 participants with Asperger’s Disorder or ASD, 72% stated that they were not receiving work
support for difficulties linked to their ASD, and 66% indicated they would hope to receive more
support for a greater respect of their workplace needs. As Schur and colleagues discuss (2014),
common accommodations for employees with disabilities include changes in work schedules
(e.g., allowing for flex time), modifying the individual work environment, using differentEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 23
technologies, and restructuring parts of the job. These accommodations are largely inexpensive
and result in increased productivity and retention. Yet, there are discrepancies between
managers’ perceptions of disability accommodations being made and employee perceptions of
accommodations being granted. While 90.5% of managers perceived that requested
accommodations were completely granted, only 72.6% of employees with disabilities felt their
requests were met in totality (Schur et al., 2014).
The research evidence shows that ASD disclosure is a complex process with ranging
effects on mental health and challenges associated with navigating when and to whom to disclose
job-related needs. To create a more inclusive work environment, it is imperative that efforts be
made to assist workers with ASD across the full scope of the employment process starting at the
job interview. These efforts must also provide tangible support from peers and supervisors as
well as organizational policies to ensure a safe disclosure environment and necessary workplace
accommodations.
Overall, employing persons with ASD is a complex issue. Existing research on public
knowledge of ASD is wide ranging and often focuses on general populations, without assessing
groups like employers or hiring managers. Furthermore, studies show that lay persons form
stereotyped views of autism. Such stereotypes are usually focused on opposing archetypes of
autism that generalize a disorder which is heterogenous in nature. In turn, people with autism
face stigma, assumptions, and other social barriers when making careful decisions to camouflage
their behaviors or disclose their diagnosis in employment settings. Furthermore, little is known
about the effects of camouflaging and disclosure on hiring decisions. Despite persisting
unemployment and underemployment rates for this group, research on neurodiversity suggests
that workers with ASD are an underutilized asset.EFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 24
Thus, the primary purpose of the current study is to test the effects of ASD disclosure and
presence of ASD-stereotyped behaviors on perceived employability using fictional vignettes in
an experimental design. Vignettes described the job interview of a candidate with ASD in which
the candidate varied on their ASD disclosure (disclosed, did not disclose) and presence of ASD-
stereotyped behaviors (present, absent). The primary outcome was perceived employability
defined as the degree to which the candidate was perceived to be a good fit for the job and
organization. It was hypothesized that there would be a main effect of ASD behaviors such that
employability would be rated lower when ASD behaviors were shown, regardless of ASD
disclosure. It was also hypothesized that there would be an interaction effect between presence of
ASD behaviors and ASD disclosure such that respondents would report lower candidate
employability when ASD was disclosed, but only when ASD-stereotyped behaviors were present
whereas employability ratings were not expected to be affected by disclosure when ASD-
stereotyped behaviors were absent. A secondary purpose of this study was to explore knowledge
of ASD and endorsement of ASD stereotypes in this sample. Though college populations have
been found to be moderately knowledgeable about ASD, little research has examined agreement
across a range of ASD stereotypes within this group.
Method
Participants
Participants were Baruch College students recruited through the online SONA
Psychology and Management Participant Pool during the Fall 2020 semester. To be eligible,
participants had to be 18 years or above at the time of participation and have held a part-time
(15-20 hours/week) or full-time (40 hours/week) job in the prior 24 months. A total of 280
students consented to participate; 7 students were excluded due to not meeting employment orEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 25
age eligibility criteria; an additional 15 students were excluded due to incomplete data. Thus, a
total of 258 participants (Mage = 21.9 years, SD = 5.1; 56% female; 75% non-White) who met
eligibility criteria completed the study. See Table 1 for descriptive characteristics of the sample.
All participants received 0.5 credit for their participation in the study.
Materials
Vignettes
Four experimental conditions were represented by separate vignettes (Appendix A)
describing a candidate interviewing for an entry level, customer facing role at a tech company
providing IT support to customers via phone calls. To minimize the potential for confounds,
these vignettes were designed so all elements of the hiring scenario were constant except for the
specific candidate profile reflecting the manipulated variables of ASD disclosure (ASD
disclosed/ASD undisclosed) and ASD behaviors (present/absent). Specifically, the candidate
profiles in Vignettes 2 and 3 (ASD behaviors present) include social deficits in communication,
interaction, and reciprocity which are core ASD diagnostic criteria in DSM-5 (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). The candidate profiles in Vignettes 3 and 4 (ASD disclosed)
include a statement that ASD was disclosed on the job application. In developing the vignettes,
language describing components of the setting and interview activities were adapted from
McMahon and colleagues (2020).
Candidate Employability Survey
The Candidate Employability Survey (Appendix B) is an 8-item measure developed for
this study based on the constructs of person-organization (P-O) fit and person-job (P-J) fit. As
described by Kristof (1996), P-O fit regards the level of compatibility between the needs ofEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 26
people and organizations. Three items for assessing P-O fit were adapted from Cable and Judge
(1997) (e.g., This candidate is a good match for my company). A fourth item (This candidate
would be a great asset to my company) was developed by the author. Estimates of the internal
consistency reliability of scores for the four P-O fit questions in the current sample was very
good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89).
Person-job (P-J) fit is described by Carless (2005) as the level of compatibility between
the person’s existing knowledge, skills, and abilities and those demanded by the role. Two items
for assessing P-J fit were adapted from Higgins and Judge (2004) (e.g., This candidate would be
a high performer in this role). An additional item (This candidate would work well with our
customers) was developed by the author and a final item was adapted to reflect a hiring
recommendation (I would recommend extending a job offer to this applicant). Estimates of the
internal consistency reliability of the scores for the four P-J fit questions in the study sample was
very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83). The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the 8-item
Candidate Employability Survey was 0.92.
Overall Candidate Evaluation
Overall impression of the candidate was measured using a single item: Please give your
overall evaluation of this candidate, which was rated on a scale of 1 (Very Negative) to 5 (Very
Positive).
Autism Spectrum Knowledge Scale - General (ASKSG)
The Autism Spectrum Knowledge Scale General Population (ASKSG; Appendix C) is a
31-item measure developed by McClain and researchers (2019) to assess overall knowledge of
ASD among adults in the general population. Items are presented as statements and answered onEFFECTS OF ASD DISCLOSURE & BEHAVIORS ON EMPLOYABILITY 27
a true-false scale (e.g., Most individuals with autism spectrum disorder will never learn to speak;
Autism spectrum disorder can be diagnosed with brain imaging). Prior research on the ASKSG
has supported the internal consistency reliability of the scores on this measure (Cronbach’s alpha
= 0.73 raw, alpha = 0.75 standardized; McClain et al. 2019). The ASKSG is scored with 1 point
given to correct responses and 0 points given to incorrect responses for all items. Scores are
summed resulting in a score range of 0 to 31. Higher scores indicate higher levels of general
ASD knowledge across ASD etiology, symptoms, treatment, and other factors.
ASD Stereotype Scale (ASD-SS)
In the absence of a published, validated measure to assess ASD stereotypes, the 26-item
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Stereotype Scale (ASD-SS; Appendix D) was developed by
the author for this study. It measures degree of agreement with five generalized stereotypes of
ASD behavior rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Development of these subscales was guided by the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association,
2013) diagnostic criteria for ASD as well as current research on laypeople’s misperceptions of
individuals with ASD (Jensen et al., 2016; John et al., 2018) and media portrayals of adults with
ASD (Huws and Jones, 2010; Stevenson et al., 2011). The subscales are: (1) detachment from
others (e.g., People with autism don’t like people) (2) transgression of norms (e.g., People with
autism live in their own world) (3) obsession with repetitive behaviors (e.g., People with autism
can’t change their routines) (4) lacking independence (e.g., People with autism need assistance
to do basic tasks) and (5) alignment with the savant media portrayal (e.g., People with autism
have high IQs). Estimates of the internal consistency reliability of the scores on the ASD
Stereotype Scale in the study sample was very good (Overall Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90, Subscale
1 Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85, Subscale 2 Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83, Subscale 3 Cronbach’s alpha =You can also read
